Citizenship in Society "Soft Release"; Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Repackaged?

[MisterH]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:20 PM, Armymutt said:

The problem is that "equity" is a loaded term.  It is focused on equal outcomes, not equal resources.  Therefore, someone is likely to get more than their equal share of whatever resource, which potentially means a reduction in the potential outcome of the person better able to utilize those resources. 

This x 100. In over a decade in education (and longer than that if you include college courses in the subject), I've seen too many different definitions of "equity" running the spectrum from common sense to neo-Marxist ivory tower claptrap. Fortunately it looks like the scouts seem to be on the "common sense" end of the spectrum.

Equity becomes a practical issue whenever you have a stated goal of having everyone reach a certain minimum standard of achievement, be it earning the Wolf badge or passing the state's end-of-course Algebra 1 exam, and everyone is starting from different points in terms of skill level. In my classrooms, the challenge has been to find ways to get the stronger students to help the weaker students, while not outright drafting the stronger students as unpaid tutors and kneecapping the potential growth of the stronger students, as many teachers are often pressured to do to help the school keep its test scores up.

[fred8033]

On 8/3/2021 at 12:20 PM, Armymutt said:

The problem is that "equity" is a loaded term. 

Even worse.  "Equity" is a nebulous, obscuring, euphanism for questionable fairness.

Nebulous ...  If you directly ask, people will give you contradicting definitions.  Further, people can't consistently apply it. 

Groups says schools need to teach the definition.  .... hmmm ... maybe the issue is more than just lack of knowledge ... I learned equity as relating to ownership / expected value if liquidated.   If you are paying a house morgage, how much equity do you have ten years in.  If you are playing poker, what is your pot equity (average winnings).  Equity relates to ownership.  I've had years of diversity training and been given many definitions of equity.  I still have trouble clearly defining it without a cue card in my hand. 

Also, defined as being "fair" ... An equitable agreement.  A good example of this is eminent domain.  Government takes your land.  In exchange, you should receive fair value.   Or, someone sues you and the court tries to find a "fair" judgement.  ... But what is fair?

Obscuring ... Social justice "equity" is the inverse of long held definitions.  It's not ownership or historical "fairness".  Rather, it's how much extra you need to be raised up to be able to participate.  This is not ownership or fairness.  How do you calculate fairness when one group takes and another receives?  It may still be the right thing to do to create a better society, but it's not about "fair". 

Example:  Giving all students a laptop for school work is equality.  But if some students don't have internet at home or fast-enough internet at home, it's not equitable.  So, the logical solution is a subsidizing program to fund getting those students internet at home.  BUT this essentially means giving some students more by taking from others.  ... I know this happens all the time right now (school, taxes, etc).  It's that "equity" is about extending the threshold further.  Justifying an even larger imbalance.  

Euphanism ... In the 1980s, the "peacekeeper" obscured the ugliness of the MX ICBM.  Here, social "equity" is formalizing giving more to one group than to another.   Equity being redefined to give basd on an unearned situation.  

Fairness ... At some point, it's best to just pull out and not participate as social "equity" is not fair.  

I bend over backwards to help scouts participate.  If they can't afford it, we subsidize or explicitly cover.  If they have special needs, we always adjust as much as we can.  BUT, that's by choice.  It's a volunteer basis.  

It's very different when it's legislated into law.  Worse, it's a system that is gamed.  In the example, it's families that drop internet coverage or do something else to have the school pay for the internet.  Essentially taking advantage.

Summary:  "Equity" is being pushed to jusitify more social programs.  

Edited August 15, 2021 by fred8033

[CynicalScouter]

http://ponyexpressbsa.org/resources/diversity-equality-inclusion

Quote

Here is the latest information regarding the upcoming Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion program.

8/26/2021

The Eagle Scout required "Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion" program is being updated and will be called "Citizenship in Society". A new merit badge is expected to be available late November with the merit badge pamphlet to be moved to an online only format.

Until further notice, all Scouts working on the Eagle Scout rank should continue to use current rank requirements. Once the Eagle-required "Citizenship in Society" merit badge is introduced, Scouts in the process of earning the rank of Eagle Scout will be given adequate time to earn it.

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

On 9/7/2021 at 8:47 AM, CynicalScouter said:

http://ponyexpressbsa.org/resources/diversity-equality-inclusion

Sounds like a good idea.  The terms diversity, equality and inclusion are devisive right now.  Now, I hope this includes consolidation. World? Nation? Community? Society? Family?  

[tnmule20]

Has anyone taken the D, E & I in Scouting volunteer training available at my.scouting.org yet?

[MikeS72]

13 hours ago, tnmule20 said:

Has anyone taken the D, E & I in Scouting volunteer training available at my.scouting.org yet?

Yes, as soon as it was available.

I posted somewhere earlier that before we  condemn the D, E, & I training or the MB (whatever it ends up being called) we should spend a few minutes to do the training.  I saw absolutely nothing in that presentation that I found objectionable.

[mrjohns2]

On 9/17/2021 at 5:50 AM, MikeS72 said:

I saw absolutely nothing in that presentation that I found objectionable.

I found the formatting of the screen and software objectional. It seem slipshot. 

[5thGenTexan]

On 9/16/2021 at 4:10 PM, tnmule20 said:

Has anyone taken the D, E & I in Scouting volunteer training available at my.scouting.org yet?

I have.  Its not what I thought it was going to be.  

Information was good, execution was pretty poor

[fred8033]

On 9/17/2021 at 5:50 AM, MikeS72 said:

I saw absolutely nothing in that presentation that I found objectionable.

My only frustration was that most of it was passable though it will trigger debate on what is fair ... what is equitable ... not everyone agrees.  The problem I had was one video then went on an ugly tangent that was introduced very late in the training and seemed to be from another course or another agenda.  Overall the training was good.

[HelpfulTracks]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:20 PM, Armymutt said:

The problem is that "equity" is a loaded term.  It is focused on equal outcomes, not equal resources.  Therefore, someone is likely to get more than their equal share of whatever resource, which potentially means a reduction in the potential outcome of the person better able to utilize those resources.  The current government policy on masks is a perfect example.  Some people chose to get vaccinated while others didn't.  The outcome is that everyone still has to wear a mask in certain settings.  

 

On 8/5/2021 at 1:28 AM, yknot said:

FYI, upstander is a pretty common term the kids have heard for years in school assemblies on bullying, inclusion, etc. Be an upstander not a bystander. I haven't taken the training but based on your excellent recap, a lot of the content you have outlined here is cribbed from standard presentations to school age audiences, including quotes, with some 2020 hotbutton updates. Not sure where this goes from here. Was anything said about Native American and other cultural representations/appropriation in scouting? I've wondered how any merit badge on this subject would square that.  

Equity has indeed become a loaded term, and upstander is a relatively new term. 

One concern I have, as a society, we have started changing or expanding the meaning of terms and creating new terms as if that some how advances addressing a problem, and in the end we do very little to actually do so. 

Or even worse, these new, expanded and newly defined, terms become part of social and political tool boxes that have agendas attached to them that have little to nothing to do with solving the "targeted" problem.

I frequently refer scouts and scouters back to the Oath and Law. If we read those, understand them, apply then and live by them, we will almost always end up in a better place. 

Edited September 21, 2021 by HelpfulTracks

[HelpfulTracks]

On 8/6/2021 at 9:53 AM, SiouxRanger said:

So, are we likely to see required or elective merit badges fill in for the merged Citizenship merit badges? And if required, what would they likely be? (Surely, 21 will remain the number to earn Eagle?)

Not necessarily, the number of merit badges need, the number and mix of required merit badges have changed many times over the last 100 plus years of Eagle Scouts. Even Eagle projects only became required in the 1950's or 60's. (I cannot remember exactly when without looking it up)

[HelpfulTracks]

On 8/9/2021 at 12:04 AM, yknot said:

Kids are a little different today. Maybe that's what Fred is referring to. It's not coddling. It's recognizing that the 10 and 11 year of today is different than the 10 year old of 20 years ago. 

 

On 8/9/2021 at 1:33 AM, fred8033 said:

I'm saying it's setting a bad example.  We should not be teaching that it's okay to treat others badly; aka being a jerk.  ... This specific situation is called hazing and against the rules.  

It is true that youth are different today than 20 years ago, and 20 years ago they were different from 20 years before that, and so forth and so on. 

They are also, very much the same. 

What makes them different? My opinion is they are different because of the events of their times, or more accurately the adults reactions and attitudes towards the events of their time. Including the lack of reaction or even over reaction. 

I believe BSA has dutifully followed suit by over reacting in some cases. BSA has redefined once common activities such as youth only patrol hikes, certain pioneering projects, etc., as too dangerous, even for our older most experienced scouts. BSA has outlawed things like laser tag as "Unfriendly" even though companies routinely use the same type events to improve team dynamics and bonding. BSA has expanded the definition of bullying so far as to include what has traditionally been called teasing and pranking, such as the "Tea Pot" song and snipe hunting. 

I know as I type this, there are some who are thinking the old, outdated, backwards and uninformed way of thinking. But there are myriad articles that say some teasing is not bad, but in fact beneficial in building friend groups and growth. 

[yknot]

26 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

 

It is true that youth are different today than 20 years ago, and 20 years ago they were different from 20 years before that, and so forth and so on. 

They are also, very much the same. 

What makes them different? My opinion is they are different because of the events of their times, or more accurately the adults reactions and attitudes towards the events of their time. Including the lack of reaction or even over reaction. 

I believe BSA has dutifully followed suit by over reacting in some cases. BSA has redefined once common activities such as youth only patrol hikes, certain pioneering projects, etc., as too dangerous, even for our older most experienced scouts. BSA has outlawed things like laser tag as "Unfriendly" even though companies routinely use the same type events to improve team dynamics and bonding. BSA has expanded the definition of bullying so far as to include what has traditionally been called teasing and pranking, such as the "Tea Pot" song and snipe hunting. 

I know as I type this, there are some who are thinking the old, outdated, backwards and uninformed way of thinking. But there are myriad articles that say some teasing is not bad, but in fact beneficial in building friend groups and growth. 

Kids today are very different in some important ways. They start puberty at younger and younger ages and are increasingly likely to be depressed. Suicide rates have increased dramatically over the past two decades, with more suicides occuring among younger, middle school age children. The events of their time are leading them to mature faster in a physical sense but obviously leaving a lot of them without the skills to cope with the stressors and pressures of their daily lives in a psychological sense. I haven't seen many adults who are capable of teasing kids in such a way that builds character. It's mostly the opposite. I've mostly seen adults who think their teasing is humorous but it is not to the kid. The quickest way I know to lose a kid's trust or respect is to tease them. 

 

 

[HelpfulTracks]

6 minutes ago, yknot said:

Kids today are very different in some important ways. They start puberty at younger and younger ages and are increasingly likely to be depressed. Suicide rates have increased dramatically over the past two decades, with more suicides occuring among younger, middle school age children. The events of their time are leading them to mature faster in a physical sense but obviously leaving a lot of them without the skills to cope with the stressors and pressures of their daily lives in a psychological sense. I haven't seen many adults who are capable of teasing kids in such a way that builds character. It's mostly the opposite. I've mostly seen adults who think their teasing is humorous but it is not to the kid. The quickest way I know to lose a kid's trust or respect is to tease them. 

First, I was speaking of teasing between youth and youth, not adult and youth. 

Secondly, while boundaries are critical I would still disagree. 

I played college football for a team that is less than popular where I live now, over the years many of my Scouts have teased me about my team. Of course I tease some of them back about their team. No one is disrespectful and no feelings are hurt. I joke with some others in different ways as well, but they all know I support them ALL.

Context is critical. I do not deal with every scout the same way. I am a cheerleader for some, quite mentor for others. I challenge and push some more than others, and some I am more stern with and more laid back with others. Each is different and each has different needs and tolerances. 

Scouts today do grow up fast. But the same could be said of previous generations. Scouts that grew up in the 60's and 70's that headed off to Viet Nam. My own father, a Scout in the 30's and 40's volunteered at 16 to go off to war. Comparing the hardships and struggles between generations is far far less valuable than getting to know the scout themselves. 

[yknot]

10 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

First, I was speaking of teasing between youth and youth, not adult and youth. 

Secondly, while boundaries are critical I would still disagree. 

I played college football for a team that is less than popular where I live now, over the years many of my Scouts have teased me about my team. Of course I tease some of them back about their team. No one is disrespectful and no feelings are hurt. I joke with some others in different ways as well, but they all know I support them ALL.

Context is critical. I do not deal with every scout the same way. I am a cheerleader for some, quite mentor for others. I challenge and push some more than others, and some I am more stern with and more laid back with others. Each is different and each has different needs and tolerances. 

My feeling is that if you feel like you have to defend teasing, it is probably best not done. Kids are always in a subordinate position to adults and it's hard to get a true read of what they really think even when you think you do.

Kid on kid teasing is even worse. Kids today have a very strange social and cultural lanscape to navigate. Their counterparts in the 1960s may have had to worry about physical landmines; kids today have to be vigilant about not putting a foot wrong and hitting a social landmine. Say the wrong word or post the wrong thing on social media, and your life can be blown up. Kids are very unsure about where the lines are drawn. Some of the things I have seen done in scouts that are still considered acceptable, like teapot songs and the like, would get them disciplined or even suspended if they did the same thing in school. Bullying today is decided by the recipient, not the deliverer.  I would also say that as adults we need to be sensitive to the fact that some kids who come to scouting are here because they feel like they don't fit in anywhere else. They have likely already put up with their lifetime quota of teasing.